Strategic Project Management

I had a great Scoutmaster when I was a boy. He drove an old Army Jeep and knew everything there was to know about just about everything in the woods (at least that's what I thought at the time).

We bounced all over Utah in his old Jeep (which is probably why I enjoy driving a Jeep today). On one of those trips, while passing a herd of sheep, he whistled loudly and laughed as the sheep all started to run. He explained that when the sheep hear the whistle, they know the sheepdog is not far behind—if they start moving for the whistle, they don't get snapped at by the dog. I've noticed a lot of work environments that operate the same way.

As many of you know, I've been reading Daniel Pink's book Drive:The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us. On this blog we talk a lot about empowering the team to contribute at a greater level, however maybe we should be talking about creating a more autonomous project environment. Pink describes the Cali Ressler and Jody Thompson brainchild, ROWE (results-only work environment), which I find fascinating and potentially very exciting.

"In a ROWE workplace, people don't have schedules. They show up when they want. They don't have to be in the office at a certain time—or any time for that matter. They just have to get their work done. How they do it, when they do it, and where they do it is up to them," writes Pink.

I'm sure to some business leaders (and probably project managers) this must sound like anarchy. I have to admit, it's not something my boss would have even considered thirty years ago. However, Pink shares the experience of Meddius CEO Jeff Gunther and how implementing a ROWE workplace has been incredibly successful at his company.

"Some people (outside of the company) thought I was crazy," says Gunther. "They wondered, 'How can you know what your employees are doing if they're not here?'"

You might be thinking the same thing. In Gunther's view "...the team was accomplishing more under the new arrangement," writes Pink. "One reason: They were focused on the work itself rather than on whether someone would call them a slacker for leaving at three P.M. to watch a daughter's soccer game. And since the bulk of his staff consists of software developers, designers, and others doing high-level creative work, that was essential."

"For them, it's all about craftsmanship," says Gunther. "And they need a lot of autonomy."

I have to admit, I've worked for people before who have watched the clock to see what time I came into the office and what time I have left every day—it is oppressive. If you asked my wife, she would tell you that she thinks I have always spent too much time at work, regardless of whether or not my clock-watching boss thought so. If I'm in the middle of something, I usually end up loosing track of time and working until I'm done. I don't think I'm that unusual. I know a lot of people who validate Pink's assertions and Gunther's observations.

Over the course of my career I've noticed that most people take a lot of pride in what they do and the "craftsmanship" associated with it. Treating people like resources that need to be managed can stifle their motivation and turn a project team of creative problem-solvers into a group of mindless automatons. That's not good for the project, the organization or the "collective."

I understand that most of us don't have the authority within our organizations to create a ROWE workplace, but what can we learn from this experiment of Meddius that we can apply within our project teams? Do you work to create an atmosphere of autonomy among the team?

A couple of days ago I came across an article written by authors Edward E. Lawler III and Christopher G. Worley, Are You Ready for the New World of Management? The authors, writers of the book, Management Reset: Organizing for Sustainable Effectiveness, suggest, "The time for a management reset has come, and it's not simply a matter of making leaders more effective or adopting the latest twist on how to engage employees. Rather, it must be seismic change; a complete rethinking of what an organization's objectives are and the way they are achieved."

Words like "reset" and "seismic change" intrigued me.

They describe the virtual environment many of us work in today. Some organizations are working with globally dispersed teams where meetings are a combination of those who are physically present and those attending virtually. I work with vendors and colleagues every week of whom I have only seen photographs and recognize their voices. This is nothing new to the project environment. In fact, they describe a scenario where globalization has made it difficult to sit around the "bull pen" and catch up with each other. "Will offices be a thing of the past?" they ask.

Lawler and Worley argue that to a large extent they already are. "Offices are an expensive artifact of an era when the Internet did not exist and office size and location was a source of status and a valued reward," they say. "In the next reset, where you work will be determined by what you are doing and who you are doing it with. It is just as likely to be conducted in a virtual space as it is in a physical space."

I see this happening with project teams now. I know of several companies who work with teams in China, Europe or South America. I'm seeing a real correlation to the reset the authors are suggesting and the way we need to lead and collaborate with the project teams of the future. They argue, and I agree, that we need to be more adaptable and responsive to changing conditions as well as multiple stakeholders. We need to create project environments that foster innovation and execution along with collaboration and efficiency. Doing this in such a diverse work environment will require a greater level of transparency from the top of the organization to the bottom—and back up again. "Achieving this requires high levels of contact between employees and the business environment; the development of innovative units; flexible, budget-less control systems; new ways of working; and value-creating networks," say Lawler and Worley.

I think this is pretty consistent with much of what we've recently been talking about. More than ever before, this type of diverse business climate requires that individuals are empowered to create and invent. What's more, simply showing up isn't enough anymore—businesses need the "right" employees and management systems that focus on achieving an organizations' goals and objectives.

"How employees behave is strongly influenced by the combination of their organizations leadership style and culture," suggest the authors. "Sustainable management organizations need to be led with an approach that creates leaders throughout the organization and that rejects the imperial CEO model. They need a culture that loves change, innovation and sustainable performance."

In other words, command-and-control management styles need to be replaced in favor of an approach that facilitates collaboration and empowers everyone to maximize their contribution to the organization. Where have we heard that before?


 

I'm not sure why it has taken me so long to pick up Daniel Pink's book Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates us. That being said, it is a fascinating book that ties together many of the concepts (and even some of the studies) that I have come to appreciate and have read about before. Needless to say, it is taking a prominent place on my bookshelf now, and I'm sure I'll be writing more about it in the weeks to come.

According to Pink, "If you manage other people, take a quick glance over your shoulder. There's a ghost hovering there. His name is Frederick Winslow Taylor ... and he's whispering in your ear."

According to Taylor, "Work consists mainly of simple, not particularly interesting, tasks. The only way to get people to do them is to incentivize them properly and monitor them carefully."

When you consider that Taylor was a mechanical engineer during the early 1900s, in the middle of the industrial revolution, I'll concede that he may have had a point—then. However the average knowledge worker on a project team today isn't manufacturing Model T Fords on the assembly line (if they are doing such repeatable and predictable work they don't have long before their jobs will either be outsourced to someone cheaper or replaced by a software program).

Pink describes what we do on the job as either "algorithmic" (similar to the assembly-line workers of the industrial revolution) or "heuristic" (something that requires experimentation and creativity). "During the twentieth century," says Pink, "most work was algorithmic—and not just jobs where you turned the same screw the same way all day long. Even when we traded blue collars for white, the tasks we carried out were often routine. That is, we could reduce much of what we did—accounting, law, computer programming, and other fields—to a script, a spec sheet, a formula, or a series of steps that produced a right answer. But today ... routine white-collar work is disappearing. It's racing offshore to wherever it can be done the cheapest. [In] other countries, lower-paid workers essentially run the algorithm, figure out the correct answer, and deliver it instantaneously from their computer to someone six thousand miles away."

I believe that's why Michael Gerber's book The E-Myth Revisited was so popular a few years ago. However I don't believe Gerber's call to create smart systems to replace smart employees does anything to foster an environment where "heuristic" work can take place. In my opinion, Gerber's assertions might apply to "algorithmic" work, but fall short within an organization that depends on project teams to creatively solve problems and create new solutions.

Pink (along with a lot of well documented research) suggests that there is something more than the carrot or the stick that motivates people to perform. Taping into what he identifies as intrinsic motivation will probably be a topic of conversation over the next few weeks for me.

I don't think it's any secret that the command-and-control management methods of the last century don't work with today's workforce. What's more, as project leaders, I think it's important that we understand what motivates people and what doesn't—particularly in an environment where project teams are expected to produce greater value with fewer resources. Facilitating a productive working environment is fast becoming one of the challenges and responsibilities we grapple with in the context of project-based work everyday.

If you're chosen work management methodology doesn't consider those factors that impact what naturally motivates people, I'm afraid it will ultimately fall short.
 

President Harry Truman said, "It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit."

Last week I cam across an article written by Esther Derby for Agile Zone, Empowering Leadership. She suggests, "Some pundits proclaim that leadership rests on charisma, the ability to create a vision, or 'presence.' Teams do need a vision and a compelling goal. But do teams need one charismatic leader? No. Teams need leaders of a different sort. Teams need leaders who don't need to be out in front, who are able to work quietly, creating an environment where everyone on the team is empowered. Such leaders—empowering leaders—may not get the glory. They do help teams get work done, invite creativity, and build capacity. How do they work? Not by rousing speeches, through followers or by exuding some magical stuff. Empowering leaders create an environment where everyone is empowered. They act on observation, not gut feel or random action."

I agree. Empowering leaders don't believe the stick or the carrot are long-term solutions to motivating people. Sure, they may work for a while, but they are ineffective over time. To be successful, it's important for us to empower the team—which means we need to become empowering leaders.

"Empowering leaders learn to observe the team and discern patterns of behavior on the group level that effect the ability of the group to get work done," says Derby. "They notice who offers ideas, who challenges ideas. They notice when one person consistently interrupts another team member. Leaders hone their ability to notice the roles people take in group discussions, and pick up on non-verbal cues. This is the information that allows them to determine what is happening, and what (if anything) is needed to adjust the environment so everyone is empowered and able to work. Empowering leaders notice how the physical arrangements affect work, how information is flowing (or not), and when the constraints on the team are too few or too many.

In other words, time spent out of the office working with the project team gives project leaders a critical view into how the team is working together and whether or not they need to adjust the work environment to help everyone work together more successfully. Henry Ford once said, "If everyone is moving forward together, then success will take care of itself."

Derby also suggests that "...empowering leaders pay attention to the context, the world the team works in. How does work flow into the team? What are the relationships with other parts of the organization? Are their policies and procedures that are hindering the team?"

Of course, we might not be able to eliminate all the negative factors impacting the project team, but according to Derby, an empowered project leader "...knows how to modify the team environment to lessen harm, and to influence out side the team to achieve change."

As project leaders, if we are aware of the environment the team is working in and how the team is reacting to it, we are better able to impact that environment for the good of the team. I'm convinced that we will find our greatest success facilitating an environment where team members can find success.

Are the terms visibility and transparency interchangeable?

The Three Musketeers by Alexander Dumas has always been one of my favorite stories. It's easy to identify with the young D'Artagnan and his desire to become one of the famous Musketeers. To have undying faith in your comrades and your purpose has always felt like a worthy goal to me. Of course, I am not a famous member of the King's Musketeers, but I have started the book again to rediscover the virtues of Athos, Porthos and Aramis. In my opinion, their call to arms, "One for all, and all for one," is the perfect example of transparency—the Musketeers' objectives were transparent to all, and they all shared the same objective.

Business leaders want visibility into the work their project teams are doing—in my opinion, transparency is something more.

Over the last several months, I have talked about the need to democratize the project management process—I think it enables project teams to contribute at a higher level. I believe that transparency is critical to that. I am not alone. "When there's high levels of transparency people make smarter decisions, there's more trust, more engagement, people are able to be more resourceful and efficient because they know what's going on," said WorldBlu CEO and founder Traci Fenton in a recent article for Axiom News.

So how am I defining transparency?

I don't think there's any question that an engaged team that takes ownership of their work is more effective. However, if we really want the team to take ownership, don't they need to completely understand what they are taking ownership of? I suggest that "transparency" includes a view into the purpose of the objectives they're working on, the goals of the organization so they can contribute to them, along with a complete picture of what any particular project is trying to achieve and how their specific contribution will advance that goal. A transparent project environment would allow every individual contributor on a project team to have that view—along with a view into the work being done by all their team members and colleagues.

Gartner analyst Matt Light suggested earlier this week at the Gartner PPM Summit, "All the employees need to know the priorities of the organization and how their individual contributions contribute to the strategy. We need to trust the employees."

He then shared the story of a GM and Toyota joint venture that breathed new life into a GM plant that was about to shut down. Toyota believes the workforce should be empowered to identify problems and actually bring them up—making it possible to find a solution. Light suggests we should, "Let the people closest to the problem react and solve the problem."

This type of environment is a transparent work environment.

The result of transparency the GM and Toyota joint venture produced included a reduction in personnel problems as employees became more empowered. This is a common "health benefit" to a democratized and transparent work environment. "I fundamentally believe the companies that embrace democratic principles, that embrace responsible transparency are going to have a leg up in holding onto their talent and also in this massively-fluid environment attract a new top talent," said Robert Hohman, CEO of Glassdoor.com.

Are you ready to join Athos, Porthos and Aramis like the young D'Artagnon? Are you ready for their call to arms? "One for all, and all for one!"